“Subscribe

The bullshit players say

buz_not_buzz

Occasional Poster
How can they afford that, with FFP?
I suspect that coming up from the Championship Forest are unlikely to be sailing that close to the FFP wind. If I understand correctly...

I understood that it wasn't £200,000 pw basic but that it came closer to that with bonuses. I believe that Forest would be allowed to make cumulative adjusted operating losses of £61m for 2020/21, 2021/22 & 2022/23 before being sanctioned (a cumulative total greater than £15m would be ok if they could prove they had the funding to deal with it, anything under £15m is no issue for P&S rules).

Even if they were to finish bottom of the PL (which I don't believe they will) then history suggests that that would be worth around £100m so that would effectively give them room to spend around up to £161m plus the value of any player sales plus gate receipts plus commercial income & minus costs (transfer fees paid, wages, operating expenses etc.) as well as plus/minus whatever they gained/lost in the previous 2 seasons before falling seriously foul of P&S rules. Then you could add another £20m-£30m to that for a midtable finish. Assuming that Lingard's bonuses are largely dependent on where they finish & assuming that no one else comes anywhere near to that salary level at the club it would be easily affordable. The fact that it seems it is a 1 year contract also covers the risk if things do go tits up for them (we can but hope).
 

Weller

Roofer
I suspect that coming up from the Championship Forest are unlikely to be sailing that close to the FFP wind. If I understand correctly...

I understood that it wasn't £200,000 pw basic but that it came closer to that with bonuses. I believe that Forest would be allowed to make cumulative adjusted operating losses of £61m for 2020/21, 2021/22 & 2022/23 before being sanctioned (a cumulative total greater than £15m would be ok if they could prove they had the funding to deal with it, anything under £15m is no issue for P&S rules).

Even if they were to finish bottom of the PL (which I don't believe they will) then history suggests that that would be worth around £100m so that would effectively give them room to spend around up to £161m plus the value of any player sales plus gate receipts plus commercial income & minus costs (transfer fees paid, wages, operating expenses etc.) as well as plus/minus whatever they gained/lost in the previous 2 seasons before falling seriously foul of P&S rules. Then you could add another £20m-£30m to that for a midtable finish. Assuming that Lingard's bonuses are largely dependent on where they finish & assuming that no one else comes anywhere near to that salary level at the club it would be easily affordable. The fact that it seems it is a 1 year contract also covers the risk if things do go tits up for them (we can but hope).
That's what I thought!!!!!😳😳😳🤣🤣🤣.
So can you explain our situation please 🙂?
 

Stagman

Roofer
Lingard said he went to F*^%%* because of the love shown by the owners. Nothing to do with £200k/week then!


Does he genuinely believe ' normal ' people are gullible enough to swallow this shit!! He's been in pro football since he was little and has no understanding of the real world. Twat.
 

TopFox

Non-Member
Well why do they call it the richest game in football?
Fucking hell! Are you being deliberately thick?
You get £0 for winning the Play-Off Final.
But you get around £100m for finishing last in the PL a year later.
So no Club will ever spend £73m that they got from mostly winning the Play-Offs. Forest have borrowed money against guaranteed future earnings. Like we have done on a few occasions recently.
 

buz_not_buzz

Occasional Poster
That's what I thought!!!!!😳😳😳🤣🤣🤣.
So can you explain our situation please 🙂?
Lol! Sorry!

Actually I neither have the will nor the brains for it as it makes my head hurt. So quick calcs which will undoubtedly be completely wrong as there's loads of complexity but...

Actual loss before tax in 20/21 was £33m but with the effects of COVID taken into account that was probably closer to zero (£36m for COVID was estimated for that season but the stuff around COVID is complex). I don't know the adjustments but if we then use the figures to try to guesstimate for 2021/22:

Turnover in 2020/21 was £226m, if we take off payments deferred from the previous season and add back in the estimated lost gate receipts & TV money etc. then it's about £229m

The other major item on that side of the P&L was related to player sales - primarily Chilwell - which added £44m to the coffers (I think for purchases P&L effect is amortisation as the player becomes an intangible asset)

So looking at 2021/22 in respect of the above & taking some guesses:
  • 8th placed finish as opposed to 5th = reduction of £5m
  • No major player sale = reduction of £44m
  • In Europe longer increases UEFA payout = increase of £4m
  • Increase in Gate Receipts due to additional European games = increase of £3m
So on those figures that's a reduction in income of £42m for last year on previous which if the assumptions about COVID were correct & costs had remained roughly the same (they wouldn't have of course, for a start 20/21 included deferred bonuses from the previous season so might actually be less) would be the loss for the year.

For 2022/23 then if we were to assume costs were to stay the same (they won't) and you then remove another £13m-£20m from turnover due to the lack of European football and the knowledge that any finish below 8th place in the PL will also see a reduction in turnover (and who knows what could happen in the cups) you can see how without selling a player we would be getting very close to our £105m loss over 3 season limit.

But there's loads of stuff missing from the above and it is really just guesswork, just trying to illustrate the impact of events given current costs.
 

Weller

Roofer
Lol! Sorry!

Actually I neither have the will nor the brains for it as it makes my head hurt. So quick calcs which will undoubtedly be completely wrong as there's loads of complexity but...

Actual loss before tax in 20/21 was £33m but with the effects of COVID taken into account that was probably closer to zero (£36m for COVID was estimated for that season but the stuff around COVID is complex). I don't know the adjustments but if we then use the figures to try to guesstimate for 2021/22:

Turnover in 2020/21 was £226m, if we take off payments deferred from the previous season and add back in the estimated lost gate receipts & TV money etc. then it's about £229m

The other major item on that side of the P&L was related to player sales - primarily Chilwell - which added £44m to the coffers (I think for purchases P&L effect is amortisation as the player becomes an intangible asset)

So looking at 2021/22 in respect of the above & taking some guesses:
  • 8th placed finish as opposed to 5th = reduction of £5m
  • No major player sale = reduction of £44m
  • In Europe longer increases UEFA payout = increase of £4m
  • Increase in Gate Receipts due to additional European games = increase of £3m
So on those figures that's a reduction in income of £42m for last year on previous which if the assumptions about COVID were correct & costs had remained roughly the same (they wouldn't have of course, for a start 20/21 included deferred bonuses from the previous season so might actually be less) would be the loss for the year.

For 2022/23 then if we were to assume costs were to stay the same (they won't) and you then remove another £13m-£20m from turnover due to the lack of European football and the knowledge that any finish below 8th place in the PL will also see a reduction in turnover (and who knows what could happen in the cups) you can see how without selling a player we would be getting very close to our £105m loss over 3 season limit.

But there's loads of stuff missing from the above and it is really just guesswork, just trying to illustrate the impact of events given current costs.
Thank you for that, seems to make sense!!!
 

Daz40

Roofer
Fucking hell! Are you being deliberately thick?
You get £0 for winning the Play-Off Final.
But you get around £100m for finishing last in the PL a year later.
So no Club will ever spend £73m that they got from mostly winning the Play-Offs. Forest have borrowed money against guaranteed future earnings. Like we have done on a few occasions recently.
That's what I mean when I said they spent their money from winning the play offs. The money they get for automatically getting into the premier League.
 

EMExile

Roofer
Fucking hell! Are you being deliberately thick?
You get £0 for winning the Play-Off Final.
But you get around £100m for finishing last in the PL a year later.
So no Club will ever spend £73m that they got from mostly winning the Play-Offs. Forest have borrowed money against guaranteed future earnings. Like we have done on a few occasions recently.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure I saw them give the Forest manager a big bag of money at full time !!

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

Truro12

Roofer
I don't know the ins and outs, nor can discuss the finances as well as Buzz, but I think the issues are also related to our wages to t/o ratio which was at about 110% prior to Schmeichel going. New rules are due to reduce that to as little as 70% in the next few years so we need to lose a lot of big earners - Schmeichel, Vardy, Tielemans, Madison and Soumare being the highest paid I believe, so a lot of credibility in the recent speculation.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220804-152311_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20220804-152311_Chrome.jpg
    397.8 KB · Views: 23

swabianfox

Rare Continental Breed
The remarkable thing about this salary table is how (relatively!) little money Youri seems to be on.

Out of interest: where are these values coming from?
 

Elsie Heffsey

Non-Member
I don't know the ins and outs, nor can discuss the finances as well as Buzz, but I think the issues are also related to our wages to t/o ratio which was at about 110% prior to Schmeichel going. New rules are due to reduce that to as little as 70% in the next few years so we need to lose a lot of big earners - Schmeichel, Vardy, Tielemans, Madison and Soumare being the highest paid I believe, so a lot of credibility in the recent speculation.
Is that right ... Soumare earnings 3 times more than Tielemans. No wonder he wants away.
Getting rid of Vestergaard Bertrand and Soumare would be far more appealing than losing Tielemans Maddison and Vardy.
 

buz_not_buzz

Occasional Poster
Is that right ... Soumare earnings 3 times more than Tielemans. No wonder he wants away.
Getting rid of Vestergaard Bertrand and Soumare would be far more appealing than losing Tielemans Maddison and Vardy.
I've never been sure how Spotrac get their figures. If they are correct then they can only be basic salaries and not inclusive of any bonus arrangements in contracts. Total "Wages & Salaries" in 2020/21 came to £158m but that is across the whole organisation including youth players, admin & casual staff but of course you would imagine the first team squad would be a disproportionately high percentage of that (Spotrac list 26 players totalling £67m). Total Staff costs (i.e. including Social Security for example) came to £191m in the same year.
 
Last edited:

buz_not_buzz

Occasional Poster
I don't know the ins and outs, nor can discuss the finances as well as Buzz, but I think the issues are also related to our wages to t/o ratio which was at about 110% prior to Schmeichel going. New rules are due to reduce that to as little as 70% in the next few years so we need to lose a lot of big earners - Schmeichel, Vardy, Tielemans, Madison and Soumare being the highest paid I believe, so a lot of credibility in the recent speculation.

Yeah, that will become an issue. I was trying to find out about the detail of that change to UEFA rules for Cost Control but hadn't managed to. I know it was reported that "transfers, wages & agents fees" shouldn't exceed 70% of revenue but I wonder about the detail of that.

Looking at the figures I think you are right that in the first year of COVID (19/20) our ratio of total staff costs (£157m incl. wages of £128m) to Turnover was comfortably in excess of 100% (turnover not including profit from sales, i.e. Edit oops, sorry not Ben, Maguire) and I suspect that without the movement out of Schmeichel and maybe others it might get close again this season (and if Transfer fees were added as suggested by reports about the UEFA rule changes we would have been over 100% last season too). I think the last year we were under 70% on the Staff Costs to Turnover ratio was 2016/17... and massively under, that's the effect of Champions League rewards when you have a relatively low paid squad!

I am sure though that that change will not be an issue for the bigger clubs (of course) because of their various revenue streams as well as their frequent Champions League forays. Before COVID, total staff costs at Man City as a percentage of Turnover was between 50%-55% (and even in the 1st year of COVID they only just went over the 70%).

I think we have 3 years to comply if we have ambition to play in European competition.
 
Last edited:

DagenhamFox

Blue Roofer
The big teams will somehow find a way around it. I struggle to believe they are fully compliant today. They’ve either found a loophole or they are like Teflon and for some reason just get away without punishment.
 
“Subscribe
“Subscribe
Top